Double Standards – An On-going Discussion

I had been thinking about double standards in connection with Gary Sheffield’s recent controversial comments before I saw Sunday morning’s Outside the Lines. Alot has been written about Gary Sheffield’s recent comments about the declining number of African Americans in Major League baseball and the concomitant rise in the number of baseball players from Latin America. There has been a good deal of harsh reaction to Sheffield’s comments – Jeff Pearlman, for example, called him a “dangerous moron.” But many commentators – Dwil having been among the first – have focused on the economic realities driving baseball’s demographic transformation, including Dave Zirin, King Kaufman and William Rhoden (Times Select).

But, as is almost always the case when a public figure makes controversial comments, the question of double standards, has come up. And, in sports discourse, it frequently takes the form of: “if a white guy said what he said…”

On Sunday morning’s Outside the Lines, host Bob Ley discussed Sheffield’s comments with Howard Bryant of the Washington Post and Jose De Jesus Ortiz of the Houston Chronicle. Bryant gave much credence to Sheffield’s remarks, noting that: “if you focus on race, it becomes a controversy, if you focus on the economics of this, it becomes a necessary dialogue that this sport needs to have…” And, Bryant specifically rejected a comparison that Ley repeated, that Sheffield’s comments about easy-to-control Latinos was akin to Al Campanis’ comments on Nightline twenty years ago, when Campanis suggested that one reason there might be relatively few Blacks in front office and managerial positions in baseball is that “they lack the necessities…” (Ley wasn’t saying he himself accepted this comparison).

Ortiz had a different view. He quoted Brad Ausmus as saying that Sheffield’s comments were “asinine” and Ortiz said that he couldn’t have said it better himself. After Bryant raised the economic issues, Ortiz agreed, but asserted that: “I do agree that these comments, if a white person had made them, there’d be a big controversy.” And, Ortiz characterized Sheffield’s remarks as “utterly racist” and complained that “just because a Black person” said them,”we have to talk about it.”

We’ve been down this road before. Last Fall, Michael Irvin made some impertinent (and joking) suggestions about Tony Romo’s pedigree (that his athleticism was due to having possessed Black ancestry) and many complained that he ought to be fired and that, in fact, he would have been had he been white, like Jimmy the Greek, who was fired in 1988 for theorizing out loud about how Black athletes’ success derived from the way that slave women were bred. Back in 2003, Dusty Baker speculated out loud about the ability of African American athletes to withstand heat. These comments sent sports talk radio and other outlets into a tizzy for weeks about the double standard that allowed a Black manager to get away with something for which a White manager would likely be fired.

And, of course, it was just two months ago that we lived through a media frenzy over Don Imus’ comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team which resulted, of course, in Imus being fired amid bitter complaints about rap music, the unfair treatment of the three accused-then-exonerated Duke Lacrosse players and such.

Before we get to the more serious issues, let’s quickly dispense with the idea that Blacks who say bigoted things in public don’t face condemnation. In February, Tim Hardaway famously said “I hate gay people.” Though those comments themselves sparked a wide-ranging discussion in sports media about homophobia in sports and in society at large, Hardaway was vilified. Hardaway also lost employment with the NBA as a consequence of those remarks. In 1999, when Reggie White uttered a series of bigoted remarks and stereotypical statements to the Wisconsin state legislature, he was also widely condemned.

In the aftermath of the Irvin comments last Fall, Dan Le Batard (himself of Cuban descent), gave an interview to The Big Lead in which he addressed the double standards question:

“I’ve heard a lot of white people say what you have said Reilly wrote (Reilly complained that a White sportscaster would have been fired for having said what Irvin said). Don’t agree with him. God, we’re so sensitive. Too sensitive. We’re so willing to end a broadcaster or executive’s entire career over a few words. We love firing people. I wonder how Rick would feel if he wrote one dumb sentence and got fired over it. We’re too willing to erase too much good work over a mistake. And I’m just as tired of hearing white people bitch about the double standard here as white people are of hearing cries of racism. Yes, black people can say things white people can’t. But Jimmy The Greek and Al Campanis don’t make up for slavery, OK? They don’t make up for the fact that just about every person in a position of power in sports is white and hiring other white people. They don’t make up for the fact that 6 of 1 million college-football coaches are black because all the people in power and making the decisions are white and they tend to hire other white people because if you looked around the room at their parties and galas and weddings, all you would see is white people. This isn’t racism. Its human nature. We gravitate toward those with similar interests, experiences, etc. But black people are in an unequal position because of it. So, yes, there’s a double standard. Black people can say things that white people can’t. But I’m OK with that double standard given what has to be endured to arrive at it. Life ain’t fair sometimes. If life were fair, Dane Cook wouldn’t be getting more play than Frank Caliendo and Dave Chapelle.” (my bold).

As I wrote last December, I think Le Batard has the proportions right here: the widely echoed belief that White males are treated unfairly in America is based on a staggeringly narrow and selective perception of reality. Yes, it might be true that, in some cases, African Americans have been given more latitude in public comments than Whites might be. But, I’d even qualify that statement. As King Kaufman noted back in 2003, one reason why Dusty Baker may have gotten a pass on his comments was that we generally give more latitude to folks speaking about “their own kind.” Jews can make jokes about Jews, Blacks can use the N-word, Latinos can make jokes about Latinos and so forth. Furthermore, the Sheffield/Campanis comparison is an inapt one. Sheffield was not, it seems clear, describing Latinos as, in effect, inferior. He was arguing that, because of their circumstances, they’re afraid to speak up and, thus, easier to control. Did he make a crude generalization? Absolutely. Is that the same as saying that Blacks can’t get jobs because they are inferior, as Campanis seemed to be saying? I don’t think so. And, though many tried to interpret Dom Imus’ “Nappy-headed ho’s” comment in a benign light, there’s nothing redeeming that can be said about those comments (whether he should have been fired for making them is a separate question).

But, what’s really had me thinking about double standards recently is a story I read not too long ago in the Independent, a Durham-based weekly publication, about Erick Daniels. In December 2001, then fifteen year old Erick Daniels was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 10-14 years in prison. There was never any physical evidence linking Daniels to the crime. The only evidence that the prosecution used to convict Daniels was the identification of the victim. She picked Daniels out of a seventh grade year book. The two men who robbed the victim, Ruth Brown, at gun point were wearing masks. So, she never actually saw their faces. She identified Daniels by the shape of his eyebrows. Brown also told investigators that the perpetrator she later insisted was Daniels was light-skinned and wore cornrows. Daniels is dark-skinned and has never had hair long enough to have cornrows. There are also disturbing discrepancies between two separate reports written by the lead investigator on the case, discrepancies that appear to undermine the credibility of the identification.Though inadmissible in court, Daniels has passed all polygraph tests. Finally, the prosecutor in the case, Freda Black, convinced a judge to have Daniels tried as an adult in Superior court (he was fourteen at the time the case was assigned). This is not, of course, an isolated case. Studies have repeatedly shown that Blacks (and Hispanics) are treated more harshly at every phase of the criminal justice system than are Whites for comparable offenses.

I raise this here because there was so much discussion during the Imus episode about what appeared to be a double standard in the way Imus was treated compared to the offensive lyrics emanating from rap music. Intimately bound up in that comparison were complaints about the double standard attending use of offensive language by Whites and Blacks. And, in the midst of that episode, North Carolina’s Attorey General, Roy Cooper, declared the three Duke Lacrosse players innocent of all charges, prompting calls from across sports media that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should apologize for having helped lead the witch hunt against the three players (it turns out that they never actually engaged in such rabble rousing, though Jemele Hill repeated that canard about Jackson just yesterday). But, as Reade Seligmann understood, in the aftermath of the trial, he and his two co-defendants had advantages throughout their ordeal that many people don’t have:

“This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed. If police officers and a district attorney can systematically railroad us with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I can’t imagine what they’d do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves.”

And, it’s worth recalling that African Americans are disproportionately likely to be among those people who don’t have the resources to defend themselves. So, while Durham justice will long be associated with the disgraced Mike Nifong and Duke Lacrosse, the bigger picture remains as it ever was: injustice claims its share of White victims in America, but there’s only one way to understand the double-standard in American criminal justice. So, when De Jesus Ortiz laments what would’ve happened if a White person had said what Sheffield said (even assuming you think he’s nothing more than a “dangerous moron”), forgive me for being unmoved. Look, I don’t expect every conversation in sports to be suffused with deep racial consciousness, historical awareness and gender and class sensitivity. But, a little perspective on double standards would be nice.


10 Responses to “Double Standards – An On-going Discussion”

  1. how about the double standard when I white ballplayer kills himself or others doing something stupid or illegal and when his manager gets caught for the same thing, its hardly mentioned. But when a black player doees the same thing or gets in comparable “trouble” which may or may not be proven, he’s convicted in the court of public opinion?

  2. Youngvito’s got a point — I expected more outrage at Josh Hancock after the tox results, and saw not a hell of a lot.

    Nice work, jweiler, again.

  3. Hypocrisy, not baseball, not football, is the American Pastime.

    It is the one thing ALL Americans can agree on.

    Nice Post.

  4. LeBatard’s argument is the same I used to defend Irvin (and I quoted him on it). Actually, here’s exactly what I wrote:

    “Here’s why it’s silly to complain about a “double standard” that supposedly benefits black people. In America’s history, there has always been a double standard, and that double standard has overwhelmingly been to the advantage of white people. If you even want to argue with this point, you have a terrible grasp of American history. What happened to the Native Americans? What was slavery? What happened after slavery was abolished? What was the experience of Asian Americans in America? How long ago was the Civil Rights movement? Who holds most of the positions of power and prestige in America? It’s quite obvious that there has always been a double standard that has favored white people. And if that means that people like Charles Barkley and Michael Irvin can now say things that would get white people in trouble, so be it.”

    Yes, black people can say some things that white people cannot say, and I see that as a very good thing; allowing great freedom to members of a minority to express their ideas and feelings is a necessary part of progress toward equality and fairness.

    For centuries white people could do all sorts of things that black people couldn’t do. When I made this argument in Nov./Dec., some commenter said something about “two wrongs don’t make a right,” which missed the point. After centuries of explicit and outright oppression, it is not enough to say “that was wrong and now we’ll treat everybody equal.” There need to be progressive, affirmative steps toward everybody being treated equal. We all have an equal legal right to free expression; I believe greater encouragement of that right for minorities is one of the processes in progress.

  5. Excellent, excellent post JW.

  6. I think the biggest double standard in the sports world is most certainly not that blacks get away with saying anything. The biggest double standard is the application of labels and stereotypes. I can almost understand it because the only exposure many of those that make the majority of our country have with African Americans is through the media–and most prominently through the sports world for many. But when a black ballplayer commits a crime, whether it be DUI, domestic assault, dogfighting, etc., he is labelled a thug, and representative of what happens when “you throw money at these irresponsible thugs.” His actions get blamed on African Americans “culture,” and their music, the fact that they dont have a father, and the fact that they have no responsibility because they blame anything on whites, etc. (all the arguments you usually here). But those labels are never applied to whites when one of them do something wrong. The disproportionate media coverage feeds into this, but the guys at the top making the decisions about coverage have these same faulty views. Its just a shame that the few idiots we have in sports that are actually criminals, give all other black athletes a bad name–and its the stereotyping majority that causes this.

  7. Miranda Says:

    I agree totally. There is a subliminal message when an athlete is described as “arrogant” “egotistical”…as opposed to confident. Why are some players vocal leaders and frustrated…..but others are “cancers in the lockerroom”? Some players are just showing emotion…..while others are “not showing class, being immature”……all of a sudden there is a cry of “the NFL needs to crackdown before it becomes the NBA”…….huh?? I take it back…that’s not subliminal….that’s overt.

  8. AP–exactly. This is the larger trend in American history of the inversion of victimization. There are all sorts of ways in society (in institutions, in the legal system, in implicit media portrayals) in which there is a double standard disadvantageous to minorities. But some people reverse the victimization, and claim it it white males who are victims of a double standard because they can’t say SOME (emphasis on “some”) things a black person can. So the emphasis becomes on this one small aspect (speech in the media) where blacks MIGHT (emphasis on “might”) have more freedom than white people (but considering the numbers of white media commentators compared to black media commentators, I’m not sure how this relative freedom correlates to any significant power; after Don Imus said what he said, there were already more built-in media opportunity for white commentators to respond than blacks), rather than all the myriad of problems in our society in which blacks are negatively portrayed and marginalized.

    Studying American history, we see this reversal again and again: whites or a majority portray themselves as the victim of some threat from a minority (in the colonists’ fear of Native Americans, in white fear of blacks throughout history, in today’s white fear of Latino immigrants, in some conservative portrayals of homosexuals, etc.). Hopefully with an honest analysis of history, we can see this and move past it.

  9. jweiler Says:


    I like the term reverse-victimization. We’ve heard the term reverse-discrimination so much in the past generation (itself an example of reverse-victimization), but there just no sense of proportion or perspective when it comes to who’s still on top and who’s still on the bottom.

  10. tattoos in mesa az…

    […]Double Standards – An On-going Discussion « The Starting Five[…]…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: